in addition to the absolute lunacy of the charges in the main article, the list of similar cases where parents were charged/convicted for letting their children walk a short distance alone is absurd
That article is from 10 years ago and it was just a checkup after a call in and no penalty so it doesn't seem comparable. Even the child services people quoted in the article emphasize that about half of these checkups involve no further action or penalties including that case.
Haven't heard a single story like this from Ireland in the last 20 years, but I'm happy to be corrected. If anything the police here are too lenient on children running amok. It's common to see 9 year olds flying around on e-scooters. The UK might be a different story.
In Atlanta 30 years ago a mother wanted to pick up pictures from the photo lab. Brought her son along.
Police were waiting cos she took a picture of her son peeing.
Things escalated when she resisted the police taking away her son.
Seriously, US: Is this the "freedom" I keep hearing about? My 5 year old nieces all walked to school alone, in a mid sized city. As do most 5 year olds in my country, because we want them to grow into adults with the capability to navigate their own environment.
I have yet to hear someone defend that in person. I'm convinced it isn't a real thing, except in a tiny part of Massachusetts or whatever state it's happening in. Potential respondents should know that I am entirely unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary in the interest of preserving my own sanity.
The family's story is that the boy went out to collect goose feathers. And there is some concern about whether harvesting or possession of bird feathers is legal, depending on the type of bird.
The subsequent charges and court case don't seem to mention involving Fish & Wildlife, but perhaps they want to remind parents that they should not commission their underage children to go on poaching runs.
To be clear, not being allowed to possess the eggs, feathers or any other part of a protected species is probably a good thing? Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Laws based upon speculation that you may act dishonestly are wrong. I've seen lots of police statements about arrests and detentions where the officer basically says, "We didn't know that he was not going to do something illegal."
Putting somebody in a position where they have to prove a negative is plain wrong. The prosecution needs to prove a positive, unless you're in Plymouth, Massachusetts where the prosecutor is required to disprove all defense assertions about mental illness, or the jury will acquit.
I read about this story on Reason.com a few days ago. The mother is getting her law license and is now worried about the repercussions of her having a criminal record.
> Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Oh, I thought "Innocent until proven guilty" was concept known even in US, but apparently it didn't arrive there yet.
in addition to the absolute lunacy of the charges in the main article, the list of similar cases where parents were charged/convicted for letting their children walk a short distance alone is absurd
america really is a backwards place
It's not backward, it's too forward. No one got arrested 100 yrs ago for letting their kid walk around alone.
Canada too. Have heard similar stories from Ireland and the UK.
Social problems increase to occupy the social workers available.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-mom-cfs-bac...
That article is from 10 years ago and it was just a checkup after a call in and no penalty so it doesn't seem comparable. Even the child services people quoted in the article emphasize that about half of these checkups involve no further action or penalties including that case.
Haven't heard a single story like this from Ireland in the last 20 years, but I'm happy to be corrected. If anything the police here are too lenient on children running amok. It's common to see 9 year olds flying around on e-scooters. The UK might be a different story.
In Atlanta 30 years ago a mother wanted to pick up pictures from the photo lab. Brought her son along. Police were waiting cos she took a picture of her son peeing. Things escalated when she resisted the police taking away her son.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49550174
Seriously, US: Is this the "freedom" I keep hearing about? My 5 year old nieces all walked to school alone, in a mid sized city. As do most 5 year olds in my country, because we want them to grow into adults with the capability to navigate their own environment.
[flagged]
I have yet to hear someone defend that in person. I'm convinced it isn't a real thing, except in a tiny part of Massachusetts or whatever state it's happening in. Potential respondents should know that I am entirely unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary in the interest of preserving my own sanity.
The family's story is that the boy went out to collect goose feathers. And there is some concern about whether harvesting or possession of bird feathers is legal, depending on the type of bird.
The subsequent charges and court case don't seem to mention involving Fish & Wildlife, but perhaps they want to remind parents that they should not commission their underage children to go on poaching runs.
This is potentially stupider than the claimed crime.
"land of the free" but its potentially illegal to pick up feathers off the ground
To be clear, not being allowed to possess the eggs, feathers or any other part of a protected species is probably a good thing? Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Laws based upon speculation that you may act dishonestly are wrong. I've seen lots of police statements about arrests and detentions where the officer basically says, "We didn't know that he was not going to do something illegal."
Putting somebody in a position where they have to prove a negative is plain wrong. The prosecution needs to prove a positive, unless you're in Plymouth, Massachusetts where the prosecutor is required to disprove all defense assertions about mental illness, or the jury will acquit.
I read about this story on Reason.com a few days ago. The mother is getting her law license and is now worried about the repercussions of her having a criminal record.
https://reason.com/2026/09/02/virginia-mom-gets-6-month-susp...
What's ridiculous is Canada Goose being in that category.
> Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Oh, I thought "Innocent until proven guilty" was concept known even in US, but apparently it didn't arrive there yet.
Woman fined $88K after kids collect clams from Pismo Beach
https://youtu.be/y2y5zCOcS-0?si=06doXuDb1ubfbI6s
Wait till you learn about proplifting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proplifting